Game Dev Derek Smart (Again) Responds To A Negative Review By Making Vague Legal Threats And Banning Commenters

from the celebrating-18-years-of-bad-reactions dept

There are many ways to handle criticism well, and none of those ways include lawsuit threats or deleting comments. This almost always results in a previously localized event becoming the focus of widespread coverage and commentary. Instead of only a few people knowing how lousy your product/service is, everyone knows. It's a phenomenon whose name scarcely needs repeating here at Techdirt.

Universal Combat is one of the first games produced solely for sex offenders.

Needless to say, the hornet's nest responded by poking at SA's own hornet's nest. This poke arrived in the form of another (somewhat veiled) lawsuit threat, albeit one prefaced with the phrase, "I get parody," before heading off in a direction that suggested Smart didn't actually get parody.

And there is parody and then their is libel. Stating as fact that I was convicted of bank fraud, is NOT funny - and I can 100% guarantee you, is not within the legal guidelines of fair use parody…

Look, I know some of you think you're above the law because you are on the net, but I never have and never will take legal action against ANYONE in the media. But if you bastards make me set an example, it won't be a good one. And trust me - I don't think any of you have enough pennies to rub together to outspend me. So whatever you do, don't test my resolve. I'm NOT taking this shit anymore.

Smart asked for the correction of the bank fraud assertion and received this in reply from "Dr. Richard Kyanka, PhD."

Dear Doctor Smart,

As per your request, I have changed the offending remark.

"When he was convicted of bank fraud in 1994"

has been altered to:

"When he was convicted of bank fraud and raping an entire petting zoo in 1994"

I hope this is satisfactory.

So there's that. Nearly 20 years down the road from his one-man assault on Usenet, not much has changed. A gamer recently published a review of Smart's "Defense Tactics." Overall, the review isn't terribly negative but it does point out that the game is short, shallow and most crucially, has severely broken controls. It does highlight other aspects, but in the end, the reviewer points out its not worth the $25 Smart's asking for it.

That's when everything started going haywire. Smart banned this reviewer from his dev forum, followed by flagging the full review as "abusive." This prompted the reviewer to add bunch of links to Smart's apparent burial of negative comments (via the deletion of posts and banning accounts) at his section of the Steam forums.

Smart then penned a lengthy response to the heat he was taking, which immediately got off on the wrong foot by suggesting that gamer reviewers suffered from an outsized sense of entitlement. During the extra-long read, Smart dropped a small hint about what he felt the corrective action should be.

The forum mob mentality is the bane of internet forums and is the primary reason why, across the internet various content providers are taking steps to curb (you can't prevent haters from hating or people from behaving badly) this behavior as best they can. So much so that many a lawsuit has been filed against some people who went too far.

The reviewer on the receiving end of Smart's unhappiness also grabbed a screenshot of another comment Smart had made, which suggested he was serious about using the legal system to shut down criticism. (That original post has apparently since been altered or deleted.)

The non-specific legal threat reads as follows:

Whether it is a lawsuit or just a discovery engagement to find the misfit behind the anon mask, I will pursue as I have done on several occasions -- and prevailed.

At this point, it's tough to say how much this will affect the public's perception of Derek Smart. 17 years of actively arguing with critics in public forums tends to leave a lasting impression. Smart's has often stated he doesn't care what the public thinks, but his actions prove otherwise. As far as damage control goes, he's apparently never found anything but scorched earth to be a useful tactic.

What's bizarre about Smart's defensiveness is that the review is not a simplistic bashing. It highlights what the reviewer found enjoyable or innovative about the game, but in the end the reviewer felt the game was too short (and the controls too broken) for it to be worth the premium price Smart was demanding. This isn't the sort of thing that should lead to multiple defensive posts from a developer, much less the indiscriminate banning/deleting of comments and commenters.

While this situation will likely only solidify Smart's antagonistic relationship with the public, it is having an adverse affect on his latest game. Steam's "tag" system has been used to tag the game with such colorful phrases as "Diva Game Dev" and "Overpriced Port of a Mobile Game."

Some semblance of order has been restored at this point (likely related to the game being temporarily unavailable for part of Feb. 15th), with the tags having returned to the more expected "space," "scifi" and "strategy." (Although Smart's efforts haven't completely eliminated the "scam" tag…) One would normally call this sort of internet give-and-take "instructional," but we're dealing with Derek Smart whose tactics haven't shifted since 1996. He may find that the internet is much, much bigger than it was in the CompuServe/AOL heyday (or even 2004, for that matter), but as he stated in his long post at Steam, he's too old to care about engaging with negative commenters (while pretty much writing off the entirety of Steam's forum members as trolls).

If that's the case, there's nothing to learn, at least not for Derek Smart "PhD." If nothing else, this may kick off the Great Steam Flamewar our kids will be reading about in Wikipedia twenty years from now.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm not saying he has Asperger's at all, just that his behavior is not inconsistent with it. I should note that there are various degrees of Asperger's (which itself is a point on the Autism spectrum). What you are capable of is not necessarily true for everyone who has the condition.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The funny thing is, I would appreciate anyone criticizing something that is wrong with my programming. People pay professionals to works those things out but he has the public doing it for free. That fact that he took the criticism so terrible says to me that he knows he did a bad job but he is not interested in fixing it.

Re: At least

You realize you're arguing for something that would have gotten you kicked off the site years ago, right?

So, which would you prefer, getting sent to time out when enough people report your comments, with your comments still able to be read, just 'hidden' behind a single click of the mouse, or being blocked from posting entirely?

Re: Re: At least

"So, which would you prefer, getting sent to time out when enough people report your comments, with your comments still able to be read, just 'hidden' behind a single click of the mouse, or being blocked from posting entirely?"

Two things, the voting part is not the worst, it's the getting my comments "held for moderation" before they get posted, often for days at a time. It all depends how Mike's minions feel on a given day. Sometimes it's quicker (this one was about 12 hours) and other times it can been 4 or 5 days.

The voting system has been proven flawed as well because the level required to vote someone down is too low, leading to a few people using it as a system to censor ideas and opinion, essentially to shut people up.

What should happen is that down votes should lead to a post being tagged for review by the admins, but not taken down until that review is made. Otherwise, the report button becomes a tool of instant censorship. My guess is that it takes less than 10 votes to get a post trashed, even less if the person pushing report is a paid up member or a staff member - and yes, the staff members do appear to be vindictive in using the report feature to shut people up.

The tools of censorship basically allow the majority to tell the minority to shut up (or sit in the back of the bus).

Just a bit of additional information on this. Derek Smart not only marked the review as "Abusive" but has also marked it as "Off Topic" on two separate occasions, to hide the review. In all three cases Steam reviewed and removed the flag and deemed it on topic and not abusive. This hasn't stopped him from continuing to flag the review.

The forum fire started with Derek banning anyone from the Steam forums that posted anything negative about the game. He has promised to post screenshots of every post that resulted in a ban to prove that he wasn't hiding negative opinions but was actually banning trolls, but days later he has yet to fulfill that promise.

http://i.imgur.com/z8PnNs8.png name and shaming by a dev, with a link to my profile at that. derek smart thinks he is above the rules i guess. also that guy was banned and the post deleted because he called him out on his shit, i mean trolling"

Re: Re: You're not summoning him properly.

Re: You're not summoning him properly.

Actually, you're supposed to look in the mirror and say 'Derek Smart' five times to make him come and rip your guts out with his billhook. Apparently, if you're a legitimate reviewer, I mean an egregious troll, then Janus will also show up to gore you with his horn. Who's Janus, you ask? Well, he's the unicorn that Derek Smart met while raping him at the petting zoo, and he enjoyed the experience so much that he married the human after his release from the island of a man named Dr. Moreau, to which he'd been sentenced for five years on account of his violent bestiality.

Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted

I just woke up to this after a long night at the day-turned-night-turned-day job, so I'm a bit groggy.

First, some housekeeping:

Regarding the tweets to me that are no longer there: "They are not [deleted]. They were removed when I blocked him I think."

Twitter doesn't 'remove' tweets when you block someone. Even if that were true, I suspect Twitter would have deleted this tweet as well.

"When I saw the very same image (now removed from Adam's Twitter feed btw - by him) in this article, I put two and two together and figured out what was going on."

That's false. My tweet including a link to the screenshot is still there. That screenshot (which I did not take) does not differ from the post it was taken from. When you complained that the quote was out of context, I tweeted a link to the full thread so my followers could judge the context for themselves.

One of my followers is Tim Cushing. The first I learned that TechDirt/Tim had posted about this was when you emailed me today. So I'm at a loss as to how I'm in "collusion" with anyone, although I'll assume that accusation arises out of a mistaken belief that Tim was someone else on the Steam boards.

Having re-read that thread (again), I still feel that it was a fair question as to why you would, in a thread classifying impolite reviews (regarding pricing) as 'trolling' and 'bullying', go on to invoke the legal process as an option:

"I don't care how old I get or what's at stake, I will never - ever - let anyone bully or push me around. Which is why when I fight back, it ends up being overkill because I don't pull any punches. Whether it is a lawsuit or just a discovery engagement to find the misfit behind the anon mask, I will pursue it as I have done on several occasions - and prevailed. Which is why people and corporations simply don't mess with me. Play nice and I'll play along. Anything else and it's game over."

In response to my inquiry as to what you meant, you've since stated, at least implicitly, that you are not considering legal options. That is probably wise. But those who would even suggest that censorious abuse of the legal process is an option should be questioned, particularly when they've issued hyperbolic, unsound legal threats in the past. For someone who has actually sued over words, you're awfully prickly when being asked what your own words mean.

Re: Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted

Correct, Twitter does NOT remove tweets.. Infact, if you know how to do a proper @(something) -@(something else) and so on type search there you can see WHOLE conversations and not just the ones that show on the recipient's end, so it is quite clear to everyone that knows how exactly how coversations go down and comments that are 'blocked' don't get kept from being posted, but just don't know on the blocked feed.

I really get the impression that the man thinks that just blocking someone shuts them up because he can't see it... Him blocking my 'Personal Attack' tweet has not prevent anyone from seeing it, other than him.

And as far as WHY he thinks you are in collusion with folks? It's because he's paranoid.. He thinks EVERYONE on Steam including all the moderators he didn't hire himself that were undeleting posts and stuff are all working together and being directed by the man he plans to launch the discovery or legal action against... We are friended now just cause we have shit to talk about and find we have some things in common, but he didn't friend me till after Mr. Smart had already accused me of working for his possee and banning me from the forum.

He is completely unable to fathom that he really could be pissing this many people off with what he's doing or that he could in ANY way be in the wrong for any of it, so to him, it only goes that he's up against powerful enemies that sigging ALL their henchmen and friends on him, like that kinda shit really goes on on a regular basis, everyone able to spare the time and effort at the drop of a hat because one of their friend's is pissed... In the real world they typically get told "SO what if you are pissed? Not my problem. Cope!" or something to that effect and they don't go spending hours of their time getting involved in a fight they have no personal interest in.

He's convinced I'm working for a possee leader out to ruin him.. He cannot believe, no matter how many times I've repeated myself that I just hate trolls, draconian censorship, and libelous assholes so much that his trying to block and honest review as abusive set me off, and I'm extra infuriated because I used to defend his right to be an arrogant prick as one of his fans, but that has been fading since Universal Combat came out and none of his games have EVER lived up to the promises or hype or even his idea of what they actually are.

In this case, he keeps talking about the only reviews being fair are the ones that play the game the way he intended.. In otherwords, think like him.. He doesn't give one rat's ass of concern for the idea that people might want to play games differently than the way the designer originally intended or the idea of there actually being 'choices' in a game.. His idea of choice is BIG environments and many ways to do things but not any real choice in any kind of a meaningful way... Mostly sandboxes.

But getting back on topic, the fact that I did once admire him, defend him and even idolize him because has had the tenacity and motivation to push out his games and I've been spending 25 years just planning to make games and never getting started. Though that has given me 25 years to STUDY game design, play 1,000s of games to research their mechanics and elements and dozens of fully fleshed out game concepts, but it hasn't put food on my table or shown the public any of my visions. I feel extra ired at what someone I once admired has turned out to be or that he made his attacks personal against me, a fan. It is like being betrayed by a friend. It hurts extra, and it leaves a long lasting sting and I can assure you this isn't the last time he will hear from me or that I will show up in one of his trolling rants.. He's made an enemy out of me now and I'll dog him any chance I get. If he wants to sue me, all he has to do is ask for my contact info and serve locate the case in my home town and I'll see his ass in court any day.. I've done Paralegal work and my father is an attorney.. I am no stranger to a courtroom and I don't tend to lose cases... I've had cops suspended for their outragious behavior in a courtroom after failing to prosecute me in what looked like open and shut cases to them always on the grounds that they failed to prove ANYTHING because they flat out didn't follow proper proceedure or collect one bit of evidence other than their word against mine.

You get all this DSmart? I hope so, cause if you actually comprehend any of it, it might shed a little light on just how skewed your views are from inside your box.

Anyway, I'm done.. I've rambled long enough and think I've more than explained what's going on as well as where I fit into this picture.

Re: Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted

I couldn't find the Tweet with your original image in it. I even searched topsy.com and didn't see it. I searched your Twitter feed and didn't see it either (e.g. in your media).

Which is why I indicated that it may have been lost/deleted when I blocked you because it no longer appeared in my feeds or yours. And again, I pointed those asking, to topsy and similar sites.

I see now why I couldn't find it. You had it on an external link and not on Twitter. Which explains why I couldn't find it. And since I no longer had your Tweet, I couldn't see that reference or I would have included it in my first missive of this morning. So thanks for clearing that up.

I wasn't prickly at all. As evidenced by my Tweets, I was puzzled by what you were asking me. Even when I saw your image, my Tweet - to you - clearly indicated that it was taken out of context. My follow-up Tweets and DM to you, specifically indicated that it was nonsense and that I didn't know what you were going on about.

Since the trolling situation was on-going, and having received Tweets from 2-3 of your followers, I didn't particular know wtf what going on. So I erred on the side of caution - and blocked everyone until I figure out wtf you were going on about.

I consider you - and Tim - to be credible people, so I don't expect that these events would be tainted (by either of you) or distorted just for fun or for the sake of jumping on the bandwagon. But since it's not the first time that someone would be sandbagged in an online campaign, I guess this sort of thing comes with the territory.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted

Just GO AWAY!! You already said you were done with this, which sounded an awful lot like the whole comments thread here... It would be your best idea... Just back away.. Heck, I'll give you a better suggestion.. Back away.. Just ignore this whole shit for a while.. Not an hour or a day, but I'm talking a week or two... In addition to letting the dust settle some because you dig your hole any deeper or choke yourself to death with your own foot, but it will give you time to do the following:

1.) Talk to some friends you trust about this and ask them for their honest objective opinion on it... assuming you aren't so much of a fucking prick that not one of your friends would dare be honest with you.

2.) So get some fucking counselling.. You obviously need it and a counselor might be able to get the point across that you are failing to get from 50% of the people you think are attacking you.

and finally,

3.) Take the time to figure out how you might be able to do some real damage control on this which does not involve threats, censorship or long fucking discourses about how you are ALWAYS fucking right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted (errata and PS)

That was supposed to read, "Before you dig your hole any deeper" in that first paragraph.

Also, as a PS: Before you go digging up your old, "But I have a mental handicap!" argument and pull out your anxiety disorder to justify why you are being a total prick, you are NOT the only one.. As you are aware yourself, it's pretty damned common. I have anxiety issues and am a recluse too.. I'm also a traumatic head injury case and have been on disability for most of my life due to mental illness.. You are NOT alone and you are often having fucking arguments and fits with people that might have some of the same issues you do and are sitting there feeling picked on because you thing they are bullying poor disabled you. Not only that, but you should it should be more clear than fucking daylight that if you have issues, they might be affecting your perception on things and you should really try to be as objective as possible.

So before this breaks down anymore on your "Poor fucking ME!" crap anymore, let me coin one of your own phrases and tell you Boo-fucking-hoo, Cry me a fucking river.

EVERYONE else: I apologize for my language getting more harsh and richer on my use of profanity, but I swear like a drunk sailor in my everyday life, don't believe in censorship and I haven't seen anyone else avoiding swear words, so I hope it won't be taken as anything more than 'flavor' by most of you.

Back to you DSmart, in your case, Please, of fucking please, DO be offended by my language.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted

That would of been the wise choice before you started in the beginning.

Then this article would never needed to be written, you would still retain some semblance of civility and intelligence.

Sadly as your legal counsel would no doubt understand you are in a bit of a bind at present since you have been the perpetrator of your own destruction now.

As for your bumptious legal threats, I would if I was you take the time to ask your lawyers about entities like Charles Carreon, Joseph Rakofsky, Prenda Law, and other butthurt individuals like yourself who tried and failed with their stupidity.

A case of a not so Smart ass

Greetings,

Decided to attach my own two cents here while I finish writing a lengthy review on toxic developers and mismanaging communities. Mr. Smart's reaction and immediate dismissal of my posts followed by a name and shame of another commenter who linked you the screen shot of said name and shame has left me all but speechless in regards to the PR atrocity this has been. When you immediately assume that a new commentor is simply there to harass you, and you begin a campaign of discrediting and slander as well as a full on personal attack, there's nothing civil left to say. Mr. Smart was left with two ultimatums which he promptly removed from the Steam community thread stating that further breaches of privacy and practices would warrant an audit and possibly worse if he persisted as well as my own final notice that he had prompted me to change my direction and move away from a game review into a Gamer Beware/Toxic Dev reciew.

I would normally say "Live and learn" at this point, but it seems that he has had long enough to learn and has refused to progress his education.

Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Everything that I posted in my response, is in the public domain. Including Adam's original Tweet.

I have not removed anything or manufactured anything.

Also, as soon as I saw your article this morning when it was sent to me by a colleague, I hailed you on Twitter to find out what this was about.

I asked for you to call me.

You opted for a Twitter and email exchange because you wanted it "on the record"

I obliged and sent you a lengthy email and which I cc'ed Adam on (the source of the screen shot you used in your piece) since he was the first person that I saw saying anything about me taking legal action against anyone.

When I sent you the mail this morning, even BEFORE I posted my comment, I asked you via Twitter DM if it was OK for me to post a comment here in my defense. You said yes, but didn't know what good that would do.

I also asked you if I should cc Mike on the email sent to you and Adam. You said that you would pass it along.

I then sent you the email.

I then posted my response here.

And now I am reading a comment from you indicating that I had somehow done something wrong?!?

The only thread in which someone threatened me with violation if I posted deleted posts/threads is here

I clearly indicated why I was considering do it. That being because some trolls had taken upon themselves to distort the facts and vilify me for deleting their offensive posts/threads and disrupting the forums. As if this was the ONLY onling gaming forum that this happens on.

I simply don't understand this.

Look, if you want to come after me, go ahead. I have no problems with that - and I don't care. I can take care of and protect myself.

But how and you come up with this stuff is completely inappropriate and uncalled for.

At which point do we just let people push us around? At which point do we hold accountable those who would seek to do us harm.

At which point do we stand up and defend ourselves? Especially when faced with this sort of "reporting".

I said one thing to you in my email of this morning, I will repeat it here seeing how you have sought to portray me here.

===Listen, you don’t know anything about me. Everything that you do know about me – as seen in your article – came from posts, articles and the like, taken out of context, presented as facts etc. This is patently unfair and not un-biased reporting. But alas, outside of letting you know what is false and/or inaccurate, there is nothing that I can do.

There are hundreds of unflattering writings about me online, but you don’t see me going after the world, do you? No. I go after only the most egregious of offenders because that is my right.

All I ask is that you be fair and accurate. You can ridicule me, be mean to me, make fun of me etc. I can handle all of that. But if anyone defames, abuses, bullies or does anything akin to that, I will fight back - regardless of the price. Nothing about this has changed. And that was the point that I was making in the article that you excerpted in your piece.

There is nothing wrong with being human and doing the right thing. Think about it.===

I had NO idea - until it was pointed out to me today by someone - that the person in that thread and the author of this TechDirt article - were the same person. And now he has confirmed it himself.

So, not only did he FAIL to document - in his article - my side of the story - as EVERY reporter is obligate to - he was in collusion with Adam all along to do this to me - as a revenge piece.

Aside from that, he posted a link to a defamatory website which was taken down years ago (which is why it is no longer on Google or elsewhere) and he had to go and dig it up from the Internet wayback archives - where is should NOT exist either. But the attorneys are already on it and he has seen the email related to that.

Re: Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Re: Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Whoa there kiddo,

First of all, you have not contacted me once. Not via steam, not via twitter, not via email, and most certainly not via phone.

Secondly, I'm beginning to have trouble following the convoluted nature of your replies. Your first reply to my comment on this article was not even directed at the proper party. You directed it towards an entirely different entity all together.

Third, you have more than one manner of reaching me at your disposal simply by using Google you can find my Skype, email, twitter, aim, yim, live, or any other of the numerous methods of communication which I use.

Finally, this is the final act of slander that I shall stand for Mr. Smart. I shall be contacting my own legal counsel shortly. You have until 4pm US eastern time to not only correct your argument, properly address the parties you are addressing, but to also issue a formal apology for the nuisance which you have caused. I shall be submitting this in full to Steam and Valve delegates for review.

Re: Re: Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Re: Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

The wayback archive link is the chronicle of the flame wars, not the Something Awful review. (Loved that response by the the author to your threat by the way. It was epic.) As far as libel in that article it's funny you should mention that. Ken over at Popehat has just posted an interesting article that quotes a decision from a case that seem rather appropriate for you to consider.

Applying the balancing test endorsed by Krinsky v. DOE 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1165, and considering whether a prima facie case of defamation has been stated, the Court finds that the anonymous comments complained of appear to be opinion mixed with sarcasm and hyperbole, rather than objective statements of fact. See discussion in Krinsky v. DOE 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154 at 1175-1178. The Court rules that the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution trumps English law in deciding whether a prima facie case for defamation has been made. Krinsky at 1173, citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 347 [states may define their own law of liability for defamation, but must remain within Constitutional limits].

My view is that the language in this case is not that far removed from that in the leading case of Krinsky — it is aggressively critical, but so over the top that the typical reader, reading in context, would recognize it as a rant—an opinion, possibly from a disgruntled consumer of the real estate, or simply from a gadly.

To quote Ken:

And as you are in Florida, it so happens that the case this one is referencing (Krinsky) is from Florida so it should also be applicable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

When you said...

"Aside from that, he posted a link to a defamatory website which was taken down years ago (which is why it is no longer on Google or elsewhere) and he had to go and dig it up from the Internet wayback archives - where is should NOT exist either. But the attorneys are already on it and he has seen the email related to that."

The only link mentioned that could have possibly construed as a "defamatory website" was the SA review. The one in the Internet Archive is just chronicles the posts that were made in the flame wars. That isn't defamatory. Those posts were actually made. And you don't get to decide what goes into the Internet Archive and what doesn't just because you don't like it. The Internet doesn't work that way.

Re: Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

"Aside from that, he posted a link to a defamatory website which was taken down years ago (which is why it is no longer on Google or elsewhere) and he had to go and dig it up from the Internet wayback archives - where is should NOT exist either. But the attorneys are already on it and he has seen the email related to that."

That would be this one, correct. Can you verify that the later vague statements you make aren't regarding trying to use the law in any way against the wayback machine?

Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

It is 100% true, and you are the worst damned troll on your own damned forums. All one has to do is go there and look at them and look at the (banned) after (banned) after (banned) in the message posts, the obvious holes in threads from deleted posts and just how high the percentage of your threads ave been locked... Your forum has become a ghost town and most of the posts are you tooting your own horn.. Must feel REALLY good to be in an empty storefront with no customers.. Gives you all the time you want to sit there and mastrubate.

Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Everything that I posted in my response, is in the public domain.No, it's not. It may be published, but that doesn't mean it belongs to the public, not under the Berne Convention. Derek Smart: smartly misunderstanding copyright, again. /facepalms

Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Re: Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Here is the story:

-September 1996, Mr. Smart allegedly attacked a coke machine at Take2 when he was told Take2 was releasing the game anyway.Allegedly, security had to escort Mr. Smart off the premises. see archives/1DerekHistory/1Before1997/CGWarticleCoke.txtA curious note, Mr. Smart still says he didn't find out thatthey really shipped until he went and bought his own copy. I don't know why he likes to say this unless, he was so convinced that they wouldn't do what they had always said they were going to do, that he didn't believe it until he actually went across the street from his home and bought a copy of BC3K for himself. If that's the case then, it's just another example of the amazing blind spots that Mr. Smart can suffer from due to his lack of objectivity.

(This was taken from an archive; the follies flamewar archive and other ones have since been purged)

Re: Re: A case of a not so Smart ass

Derek contrary to you name your not so smart,this is the modern age of the internet and it does not matter how many links you provide to sources where you have full control to edit and censor nobody believes you anymore.

You are the boy who cried wolf way too many times,you have a well earned rep of making big promises and never delivering,of spouting lies and BS then backpeddling and making legal threats when you are found out.Your original comments about David Braben and Elite Dangerous followed by your backtracking to try and get its customers on your side for your BS against Chris Roberts and Star Citizen are proof of this.

This article has stated the truth, that you don't likje the truth because it pops your over inflated opinion bubble of yourself is irrelavent.

This is simply untrue

Hello everyone.

I just wanted to say that in all the years that I've been a TechDirt reader, I never once thought that I would be the target of an article; let alone one like this.

While I am not going to debate the merits of the article nor the tone - as that is unlikely to change anything - all I want to point out is that at no time did I threaten anyone - veiled or otherwise. That aspect - and cause for this article - is taken completely out of context in this case of un-sourced reporting.

I am not going to bother defending myself. Instead, I am just to assume that the TechDirt reader (not the anons who are going to flood this article) is smart enough to understand what has happened here and how this article is highly questionable.

I wrote a lengthy email to Tim Cushing and Adam Steinbaugh this morning explaining my position, among other things (e.g. a link to a defamatory website which was taken down as part of a legal action).

I do want to mention that, at no time, did I ever threaten, veiled or otherwise, anyone with any legal action over reviews; as the article implies. This is FALSE and the web article I wrote and which was excerpted, was clearly taken out of context. Below is the original posting on Steam forums.

I don’t know when his source (Adam Steinbaugh) took the screen cap that he included in the article, but if you look at the full thing (please pay close attention to the last edit date), you can clearly see – and understand – the context. There was no threat – veiled or otherwise – to sue anyone over reviews or anything related to this game and/or discussion.

In my email to Tim, I also cc’ed Adam Steinbaugh because his Tweet was the first time that I ever got wind of anything related to “veiled legal threats” as well as the image Tim used in the article.

You can also see my conversation flow with Adam (@adamsteinbaugh) on Twitter and in which I clearly told him that I have NO idea what he’s talking about, there were no threats (veiled or otherwise) etc. It’s all there.

I released a game. Some people took issue with it being a port and not priced to their liking. As with all gaming forums – especially Steam’s – things went sideways. As I clearly explained in the posts below, we did the best that we could to resolve the issues. But trolls will be trolls.

My comment was a general statement saying exactly what I’ve done over the years when people push me too far. It is not unlike the other historical accounting in the same article. It was a general statement. Nothing else. Basically, if someone bullies, abuses or otherwise defames me, I will pursue it – as I always have. Again, if you read the whole article and its context, this should be clear.

And the “discovery” comes from instances whereby – during litigation – some anon people were posting defamatory material (about me personally, not my games) in forums. In order to have them removed, we had to file a lawsuit, then use that as service to the hosts – who then, as required by law, provided the info. This is no different from any legal action similar to same. Adam knows more about that.

Again – nothing to do with reviews.

And since you can’t see some of the deleted posts*, I can see how it is hard to see the context. Which is exactly why some people were suggesting that instead of deleting the offending posts/threads, that I should leave them up so that people who don’t know what is going on, can see for themselves. Here is one (of many) such example which we let stand for that very reason.

I am very passionate about what I do as a game dev. However, I don't respond well to online harassment, abuse, bullying, homophobia, sexism or anything of the sort. I will - as I always have - defend myself against any such transgressions.

This article is patently unfair, without merit and not the sort of thing I have come to expect from TechDirt. But it is what it is.

Re: This is simply untrue

I don't know... even in full context, it still sounds like you're making not-so-veiled legal threats against people who criticized your game, but later tried to walk it back.

Your "Tales from the Dev Side" essay is interesting -- perhaps I don't understand the context, but the review in question was thoughtful and well-spoken. Certainly nothing anywhere near abusive or trolling. If that essay is in response to that review, it's a pretty bizarre response.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is in including those last two steam community links.

Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Also, anything left standing on the Steam forums, are neither abusive nor trolling. That's why they are up.

I have been doing this for 20+ years. I have shipped a total of 16 games. Not once have I sued or threatened to sue anyone over a review.

As I said on Twitter (see the link I posted), that is completely silly.

I still don't see how my missive could be taken out of context, though I do pride myself in my ability to articulate my thoughts. But as they say, if you look hard enough for something, you'll probably find it.

Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

harassment? i see zylche trying to keep you on topic. as for me, i was banned for saying zylche isn't trolling, with the reasoning given right after by you of: arguing with a moderator. i fail to see how that is related, as you are a dev.

Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

as for chinook, yes he was banned for that as it was literally his first post in the Line of Defense subforum. as for the rules you should be banned from posting as well based on http://i.imgur.com/T95OAda.png as even threatening that is against valve's rules

Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Here's a tip for you mister Smart. Next time you want to give an example of how people have been trolling you, you may want to post a link where they are actually trolling you, instead of asking you to keep on topic and you accusing them of harassment. It doesn't really help your case for convincing anybody you are speaking the truth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

I have read most of them, so I'll sum it up... It's personal attacks with claims he never makes personal attacks. It's legal threats when he says he never makes them. Heck, you go up and read posts in here, he even talks about litigation, discovery and tracking folks down.. Yeah, he'd argue he never sues reviewers in particular and never said he never threatens anyone, but that's already been debunked in here too. As for the rest of it, it's him throwing a tempertantrum and going on ad nausium about

a.) How he is always the victom.

b.) That he is only enforcing Steam Rules (which is not true, because until it became pointless unbanning folks when he keeps rebanning them, or undeleting posts when he just keeps deleting them, but at one point Moderators were in there unbanning folks and undeleting posts that had not broken Steam Rules)

c.) He repeatedly goes on about how as a shop owner (refering to the forum as his shop) it only right to call the cops or throw out customers that make a scene, which has been argued against ad nausium but folks that that is not what the professional demeanor of someone managing a store and has even recommended that he take some of his vast fortune and HIRE someone to handle his PR for him cause he's clearly clueless.

and finally d.) The rest of it is just innange ramblings, and both circular logic and logical fallacies where he tries to argue his point, just like he has here, and that's probably most of the rambling.

Oh, and in other places he keeps trying to tell professionals in jobs he's never had experience in how to do their jobs and that he knows better than they do, like shop clerks and game reviewers particularly come to mind.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

So I guess, if mister Smart was the owner of a green grocers, and I went back to complain about an apple with a worm in it, he would reply: "That's simply not true. My apples do not have worms in them, and I can say that because I know it is a fact". Then he would call the police to get me forcibly removed from the store. To all the people looking surprised he would say: "Well this is MY shop, so I have a right to treat my customers exactly as I see fit!".

To just keep things quiet, I didn't do it. Though I had every single right to do it since it would simply have meant undeleting the posts.

In fact, it is our opinion that the opposition was because the guilty didn't want this to be revealed because I would be proven right.

I can prove - without a shadow of a doubt - that at NO time did we delete VALID posts (reviews or otherwise) which were in compliance with Steam's code of conduct; which you can see here in its entirety.

As I said before, while I'm not the poster child for good online behavior, what I am being accused of here is completely FALSE.

I can take the hits, but it needs to be fair. When you have an unfair fight, it's called bullying.

And when things go too far, that's when my bank a/c and attorneys get involved. And that's when people cry foul. And THAT is what I was explaining in this post which was completely and totally taken out of context. See paragraph six (6)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Yeah they were deleted by YOU. So now there is no evidence of the horrible trolls all ganging up on poor mister Smart. How convenient.

You promised to post pictures of deleted posts in a seperate thread: never happened.

You promised to unban people on the forum: never happened.

You are just full of crap, aren't you mister Smart? Do you really expect people to still believe you? You seem to be a compulsive liar that has to twist the truth even when it's plain for everybody to see that you are doing it.

I had NO idea - until it was pointed out to me today by someone - that the person in that thread and the author of this TechDirt article - were the same person. And now he has confirmed it himself.

So, not only did he FAIL to document - in his article - my side of the story - as EVERY reporter is obligate to - he was in collusion with Adam all along to do this to me - as a revenge piece.

Aside from that, he posted a link to a defamatory website which was taken down years ago (which is why it is no longer on Google or elsewhere) and he had to go and dig it up from the Internet wayback archives - where is should NOT exist either. But the attorneys are already on it and he has seen the email related to that.

Re: This is simply untrue

Hi, Derek. Timothy Geigner here. Wanted to give my last name since we're already had some challenges with like names. I typically make the dick jokes around here, but every once in a while I'll jump into a comment to deconstruct it. Here we go.

"While I am not going to debate the merits of the article nor the tone - as that is unlikely to change anything - all I want to point out is that at no time did I threaten anyone - veiled or otherwise. That aspect - and cause for this article - is taken completely out of context in this case of un-sourced reporting."

That's bullshit and you know it. The only possible reason for jumping into a reviews section you've been patrolling and start throwing around general language about legal action and pursuits is to chill the air. This would be like claiming, while someone was making fun of you for a silly comment on Techdirt, that you typically respond to bullying with gun-violence wasn't really a threat to those mocking you, just some general information you thought it'd be nice for everyone to have. Don't treat us like idiot children, thankyouverymuch....

"I am not going to bother defending myself. Instead, I am just to assume that the TechDirt reader (not the anons who are going to flood this article) is smart enough to understand what has happened here and how this article is highly questionable."

I, not an AC, understand EXACTLY what happened here. Some people wrote negative reviews of your game, some of them may even have been nasty, and you decided to wade into the muck instead of staying the hell out of it and letting the chips fall where they may. Regardless of any justification you think you can come up with, I'd say your strategy has proved to be uber-shitty. You've been Streisanded, and if you read Techdirt as you say, you probably should have seen this coming....

"I do want to mention that, at no time, did I ever threaten, veiled or otherwise, anyone with any legal action over reviews; as the article implies. This is FALSE and the web article I wrote and which was excerpted, was clearly taken out of context. Below is the original posting on Steam forums."

I read your comment in the link. Here's a paraphrase of what you said: I'm fucking rich as shit and when I respond to something I don't like, I go for "overkill". You can keep claiming that there was nothing threatening in what you said, but nobody with half a brain cell is going to buy it....

"This article is patently unfair, without merit and not the sort of thing I have come to expect from TechDirt. But it is what it is."

All I'll say is you're lucky Cushing got his meatpaws on this before I did. There would have been soooooo many dick jokes....

Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Well yeah, if there were dick jokes in the article, it would have probably put things into better context: another day on the glorious Internet

I disagree with your comments which clearly show either a lack of understanding or pure unadulterated and willful ignorance.

Especially when you consider that I backed everything I posted with links to original sourced material. Instead, all you did was use conjecture and misdirection to attack me.

That's cute.

And as someone who is published, maybe one day when someone actually writes a review of your books, then you will see what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot. It is always nice to be on the outside looking in.

Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

You keep talking about how it's nice to be on the outside looking in.. You know, you can be there yourself.. It's called objectivity.. You know, looking at things from a perspective other than your own?... Clearly something you have absolutely NO concept of.

Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Oh, and just for the record, just because I can talk to you civilly does not mean I will EVER be a fan of yours again. You are on my permanent shitlist for your latest behavior.. I do NOT tolerate trolls and you are being one of the biggest ones I've ever seen.. Much more articulate than most, but a troll none the less.

And I know you set me to ignore on Twitter but most people haven't and my demonstration of a personal attack on you has been viewed by several, liked by some, disliked by none and retweeted three times but I have a feeling you have still missed in.

In short, I am breaking every CD or DVD of any game of yours I ever bought, and that's rare, because I tend to hold onto games FOREVER, but as low as you have stooped in this mess and as much of an ass as you are being, I don't ever want to play a game of yours again, and if we ever do meet in person, you will likely have grounds to press charges for assault.

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Cry me a river. I don't care about you enough to be concerned about whether or not you are being civil. The fact that I banned, then blocked you, should be a clear sign that I want nothing to do with you. Take a hint.

There is a reason that you were banned on the forums and my blocking you (and the rest of your quartet who are now here - doing the same thing). This would be it. And it's called HARASSMENT. Look it up.

And you don't have any of my games. People who own my games - let alone play them - have a lot more sense that you exhibited in your posts and here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

I am no part of any quartet... I was not a friend of anyone you are having issues with right now till AFTER I jumped into your fray... You got my ire by claiming a reviewer's damned fair review was abusive... That's why I'm involved.. No one asked me.. Like many people that have gotten involved, you pissed me off without anyone else's help.

Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

"Well yeah, if there were dick jokes in the article, it would have probably put things into better context: another day on the glorious Internet"

Christ, what are you, some kind of Puritan? Get over yourself.

"I disagree with your comments which clearly show either a lack of understanding or pure unadulterated and willful ignorance."

I mean, with such substantial logical dialectic as this, who could possibly argue with you. "You're wrong because I say so. Now watch me say so." Oh, okay....

"Especially when you consider that I backed everything I posted with links to original sourced material. Instead, all you did was use conjecture and misdirection to attack me."

I read the source material to which you linked. I even commented upon it. But, hey, keep playing that victim card instead of simply admitting you're wrong and getting on with things, because it feels oh so good to pretend to be persecuted.

"And as someone who is published, maybe one day when someone actually writes a review of your books, then you will see what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot. It is always nice to be on the outside looking in."

I've had people say horrible things about my books. Frankly, I'm happy they're even reading them, and I'm certainly not going to get my shorts in a twist because some of them don't care for them or want to call me a name or two. Why the hell would I give a shit about those comments, other than any lessons I can actually learn from them? Why would I spend even a moment thinking about them, never mind patrolling reviews and responding.

It must leave you very little time in life when you're busy battling the world....

Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

"Especially when you consider that I backed everything I posted with links to original sourced material."

Except that not a single one of those links backs up anything you've said.

"And as someone who is published, maybe one day when someone actually writes a review of your books, then you will see what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot."

Ahhh, and it comes to this. "You just can't understand until you've experienced it." This sort of sentiment is really just a variation of sour grapes, nothing more.

As both a published author and a dev producing software for the public for over 20 years, I have experienced it all: bad, even nasty reviews, unpleasant comments from people, etc. Sometimes the bad reviews were correct, sometimes not. Either way, it does sting a bit when someone calls your beautiful baby ugly.

But lashing out like you've done is very ill-advised. Let me give you a bit of unsolicited advice for the future in how to deal with criticism: either don't respond at all or say "thank you for you input" and move on. Use the good reviews and commentary (I assume you have those as well, right?) as salve to ease the sting.

Best case is to try to understand the points the criticism was making and use them to make your next project even better. If, however, you can't take the heat, then simply don't read the reviews at all. You'll be happier for it.

Personally, I value the "bad" reviews MUCH more than the good ones. Being told "this is great!" feels good but is without value. Being told what aspects of it sucks is a valuable education.

But all of this is besides the point John. Why? Because - despite what transpired - what I am being accused of is completely FALSE. If it were true, there would be no drama and nothing to defend against.

1) Nobody deleted valid posts

2) Nobody deleted valid posts about game reviews/opinions

3) Nobody threatened to sue anyone over reviews

That is pretty much the gist of it. Instead of reading all the resources, the lynch mob is just happy to have - yet another Internet target (famous or infamous depending on who you ask) to attack.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is simply untrue

Why not prove that by undeleting everything then? You keep saying you have proof but can't show it.

Sure you can, go ahead. We'll wait. But don't ever reference evidence again that you don't plan to show - if the post goes "I have something but I can't show it - take my word for it!" I direct you to "the boy who cried wolf."

You're not credible, screencaps and undeletes are. Less you, more the other two, or go away, please.

Re: This is simply untrue

Except that the Something Awful article wasn't libellous in any way. I mean yes, it is full of untruths made as statements of fact, I admit, but whereas you read "Completely Libelous Review of Universal Combat" as saying, "We hold our hands up to actionable libel and defamation of character," I read it as saying, "You shouldn't believe a word of this, it's complete bullshit from beginning to end." Declaring that an article is untrue in its title means it can't be libel, and no one can make anyone think any less of you than you already have, so the threshold for defamation hasn't been met.

Re: This is simply untrue

No one is holding you up to a higher standard of conduct; being able to take criticism in stride while working in a field that produces retail material IS the standard.

You can continue to veil this by saying all you have done is suppress trolls but anyone looking at the small percentage of posts that you didn't hide can see your reaction to any honest criticism. As an example, nearly every negative review has called out the controls as an area of major concern. Your response to that is "you're playing the game wrong". Every other negative review that been linked on the Steam forums has received a response from you calling out the person for bias or stupidity. That is not living up to the lowest of standards.

Frankly you have never learned

You patrol the internet for anything that reference you and pick childish fights when you find them. The worst thing you do though is that you hinder the chances of success for your coworkers when you assume you are the man for the job in terms of public relations. I honestly can think of only a handful of people in the industry who would do more damage on that front than you.

Had you checked your ego at the door and let someone else front the game and deal with the communities - the outcome would have been less acidic and there would have been a chance for a comeback through patching and tactical give and take.

But you are as you tout so proudly, "Derek Smart". To be honest, like in the Princess Bride - you keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means. To you, its like Mt. Rushmore or some form of founding father. To the internet, it's an askew reference to some form of prideful boogeyman who just doesn't get it and has remained obstinate despite all of the beatdowns.

In short, it is pretty simple. If you are good at something - stick to it. You say you are good at developing games. Well then stick to that and let someone who is good at dealing with the public do their job. Otherwise, you have all but buried the efforts of those who worked on this game and that MMO you keep referencing.

Not for Nothing but...

Cabro[aka: that guy that called him out for being , 19 Feb 2014 @ 10:55am

I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.

Mr. Smart,

Why do you feel compelled to constantly censor [which is illegal and against the constitution of the United States, i might add] potential customers and label them as "trolls" when they are simply giving legit reviews on your product? You clearly do not have much intention to make a sound profit on this product, as from what i can see over the last week. Nor do you appear to have much public relations for a business man, since you are constantly deleting posts and banning people under false names, such as "troll" or if they simply give a bad review becuse your game is horribly broken and unfinished. How about; instead of making this matter worse, you go fix your broken game and pray the people even bother to look in the remote direction of it after this mess you've made by being unreasonably biased, hateful, zealous, or just outright vengful against the entire community of Steam?

I do no buy games myself anymore. Your highly unprofessional behavior on how you have treated valued customers is a shining example on why I do not buy from steam. Games are gifted to me from friends who might think i would enjoy them, i do not buy games myself out of fear that it would most likely be a failure or it would be a rushed product(such as Halo 2 was) or it be similar to Call of Duty/Battle field games, where those games are just a very slightly face-lift with new maps while being hideously over-priced as a new game when there is nothing "new" added to it. My point being: you have single-handedly assured that Steam does not get a single penny from me in the near future; because i will not buy games from any store where someone who is 'supposed to' be professional in a public relations position, treats any and or all potential customers like a lesser species and bans, deletes, wrongfully labels, or just outright censors[illegal still] anyone or everyone that does not say what you want.

Re: Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.

Re: Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.

"That is all".

The way you end your posts really says a lot about you mister Smart. It tells people how arrogant you are. And yes, comments made on the internet are just as legally binding as anywhere else. Didn't you threaten to sue a ton of people over comments on the internet or has everything I have been reading about you been made up? Or is it just a rule for everybody else but not for you?

Re: Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.

Legally speaking, you are correct. Everything you've done thus far and everything everyone has done thus far is legal. You might not like it, but it is. Everyone here might not like it, but they will just have to deal with it.

Technically, everything in an online forum does have to do with the US Constitution and always has. However, this does not apply to anything going on as this has nothing to do with the government in any shape or form.

Its your forum, do what you want. Its part of the TOS that you can ban anyone you want just because you want. However, you still do not get a right to threaten lawsuits for harassment when people exercise their right to call you out when you resort to troll tactics because you are bored. I mean, you 'can' say you are going to, but ultimately you have no legal grounds and are simply trying to troll.

There is no law saying I can't troll you or that you can't troll me. I have yet to see any real "I am going to find you and kill you" yet which would then be grounds for legal action.

I don't even know why anyone is bringing up lawsuits and stuff. It is not viable to put a lawsuit forth on the basis of what was said via technology as it cannot be proven who typed the message at that exact time. Even if there are passwords, security, ect, it will be thrown out on those grounds alone. It is a very strong grey area and until threats are made against someone's life, nothing can be done.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.

I think you have missed the point.

You are right that you haven't threatened over a review. But I see multiple cases of you threatening over things such as harassment, abuse, and other things. Legally speaking, there is no grounds to do anything. All you can do is exercise your right to ban them. Until valve says you are in the wrong, you can do it.

On the flip side, it is within every right to make articles like this. I have yet to see a true personal attack so far that could even merit a lawsuit outside. Have you seen political campaigns and ads for them on TV?

But, this is the internet. If you don't like what other people have to say or things like that, you are better off not responding at all. You will not win. Banning is especially one way to set off a shit storm like this.

I understand defending your pov, BUT you better be ready to take the heat. A simple solution to solving the problem of everyone writing anti-Dsmart posts is to stop giving them a reason to. It is not that hard to do. All you have to do is simply talk about what interests you and ignore the rest. If you don't like a particular review, give your response (if you must) and then leave it. But, saying things like "You're wrong" in response to a review / opinion is just asking for a shit storm. its an opinion for a reason. Dont like it? well that sucks.

People will speak with their money and their play time when it comes down to it.

This whole thing is kinda pathetic tbh. All this comes down to is a bunch of fools on the internet bickering on a different day over a different subject.

Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.

Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.

> Why do you feel compelled to constantly censor [which is illegal> and against the constitution of the United States, i might add]

It's actually neither illegal nor a violation of the Constitution.

Censoring, banning, blocking, etc. on a private forum, whether web-based or real world not only isn't illegal, it's a protected right of the person who owns the forum. It may be a dick move, and a bad idea from a customer-relations standpoint, but it's perfectly legal.

As for the Constitution, it only protects citizens against censorship by the *government*, not web forum moderators. The Constitution has nothing to do with any of this.

What is this I dont even

Well,

I have been sitting on the sidelines watching all this unfold. I probably could have picked a better place to jump in, but I guess it doesn't matter.

First off, I don't see why Dsmart is even talking. He's a Dev and his first priority should be what he works on. If he really doesn't care what people think of his game, that is his business... But clearly he does care or he wouldn't be banning people, even if its for 'trolling', which leads me to my next point.

Reviews. "a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary." From what I have seen, Dsmart has banned people for giving exactly that. Part of a review is offering an opinion. It is called Criticism and without it, there wouldn't be any innovation and likely you wouldn't even have a job, less we live in a socialist economy but that is a whole different story. The point is, it is not you who decides what is a review, it is the person who is writing it decides if it is a review and the people who read it. If you don't like the review, down vote it and move on.

Third. While I don't know much about Dmart or his personal life, I can say he must have something going on. Could be any range of things from drugs to just wanting to be obnoxious and loud. But it is quite clear, there is something there or he wouldn't be responding and would just let people think what they want.

Fourth. The 'retail' comment he made on twitter. I have worked in retail for 5 years (never again) and just about every day you will deal with people who are pissed. They will yell, shout, demand, deface, and criticize. And you know what happens to the offenders? They get apologies, free stuff, and possibly even changes to the business. It is not until violence, vandalism, or stealing comes into play that any throwing out or police are called.

Fifth. I see Dsmart making claims that he is being harassed, bullied, abused, and many other personal attacks. From what I can see through reviewing the history, the first person to start a personal attack was Dsmart. If he is going to start personally attacking, he has no right to complain when people personally attack back. I also find no actual 'bullying' or any of these other claims present. Either he is paranoid or he is intentionally trying to troll people by playing a sob story.

And lastly. Dsmart has some kind of goal clearly in responding. It is very evident that he is trying to garner attention and it is working. He is calling people 'trolls' but I think he is the biggest troll here, whether he knows it or not.

Re: What is this I dont even

"In an interview which was featured on the cover page of Computer Gaming World, Smart said of his online persona: "Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble.""

Derek have you even looked at the links you're posting as evidence? They only prove that you're blowing up in the face of even the smallest most well-worded criticism and it isn't helping your case.

The only evidence I see in any link you've posted is customers and steam moderation having to keep you in line while you plug your ears like an adolescent and do everything you can to "just make them go away!"

Re:

Entry for dsmart

dsmart is when you remove the smarts from the situation, examples of dsmart:

dsmart is sticking a finger into a live electrical socketdsmart is being a white supremacist at any african-american rallydsmart is being a arrogant black man at a white supremacist backyard barbequedsmart is throwing faeces into a gale force wind and expecting not to get hitdsmart is just being a dipstick around peopledsmart is not listening to older wiser heads giving advicedsmart is walking blind across a landmine field

Re: Re: Golden Oldie

Re: Re: Re: Golden Oldie

Dang... I entered that wrong.. Was thinking too and not from... D'oh... Too much emailing today just before this.. My bad. And before you get up in arms over my accidentally putting your name in, you have been making a SLEW of typoes all day long... I just wish there was an edit or delete feature on here, but totally get why there is not.. If a mod can change that post I'm replying to to me, by all means, please do.

This. When you say "I don't get in fights because when I fight, I murder people with a hatchet" yes, you're TECHNICALLY talking about your peacefulness, but all anyone hears is "Oh God, I'd better mind my Ps and Qs because they've said they're a hatchet murderer."

Nobody goes "Oh, well good thing I'm only slightly tweaking the hatchet murderer, I'll speak just as I was, because he's said he uses his hatchets for good, not evil!"

Permanent Troll Position

Hello Derek Smart,We were wondering if you would consider becoming this site's official troll. You have already displayed an impressive aptitude for trolling and causing trouble, and our regular troll out_of_the_blue seems to have quit. There is no salary for this position, just the general hatred of all Techdirt readers, which will hopefully be enough for you.Thank you for your consideration.

To be honest, I had never heard of Derek Smart until a couple of years ago. I had seen reports of an upcoming MMO and wanted to look into it so I tried to register in the forums. Although it had appeared that I had registered, I was not able to post anywhere. This went on for a long time until I decided to PM Mr. Smart to see why I could not post in his forums. I was a bit taken back when his email response to me was arrogant and rude to the point of causing me to lose interest in the game. I have never had initial contact with anyone so unreasonably combative as this jerk. Derek Smart, I hope all your projects end as ill-fated as your previous ones. I hope you go bankrupt and have to live in the streets eating out of dumpsters. My only reservation about this is you would give the homeless a bad reputation.

@dsmart - put my name on the list of gamers/reviewers/world you are so unfairly persecuted by. also want be included on the list of those who will never buy one of your games. ever. and dude i buy a lot of games. so while not really looking to get on your list of those blocked,censored, harassed or threatened with legal action it seems inevitable since that is your modus operandi. your thought process is broken. i alpha/beta test many successful games and have first hand experience of how forum community feedback works with A team developers. i'm very well versed in how professionals handle themselves in such matters and you sir are an A class douchebag.

DERP

IS IT GAS DAREK?? IS IT GAS??? MAYABE ITS GAS!!!

I'd be angry as well if I held it in all these years. You just have to pull your finger out of there and realize there is a whole world of people that might actually care if you could fix your ego a bit. Surely many indie games on Steam didn't evolve out of fuming over what a bunch of petty insiginicant few rotten apples think.